Kate Paape

“The personal is political,” a belief raised from writer and poet Adrienne Rich that
resounds loudly into modern art culture today. Art has long been known to affect the emotions
and kindle the mind towards an awareness of oneself and their place in society. If the artist is to
be a force for good, then the artist should represent the cultures of those silenced in the world
and be a voice for the voiceless. It is hard to deny that the effect of art stretches into the realm of
morality, and perhaps artists have a moral obligation to elicit change through their work. Despite
these good intentions, I remain skeptical of this approach to art. Good art should elicit change
due to its inherent appeal to the human soul, regardless if its intention is to be political. Of course
it is political. Art makes one think about the world differently which will inevitably affect every
other aspect of life, including politics. Yet policymaking is not the sole function of art. Art
affects the deepest parts of our humanity and allows us to view the world in different ways
previously hidden to us. Art makes us realize that there is something more to our lives than
merely surviving. It connects us to something larger than ourselves which unites humanity.

Perhaps we should start with the definition of the cultural “universals” proposed by the
Romantics in the 1800s, or “the old white guys” in the western tradition. After the
deindividuation caused by the industrial revolution, Romanticists longed for something
meaningful beyond the machine, a desire to be reunited with nature. Their ideals were finding
meaning through transcendental experiences, the pursuit of beauty and inspiration,
self-discovery, and the struggle of realizing the difference between our perception of the world
and reality as it really is. These ideas are themes humanity has been wrestling with for millennia,
and I think it is fair to say these ideas are present in most (if not every) culture in the world. Most
importantly, these ideas have stood the test of time as we still struggle with them today. Yet, we
seemed to have abandoned them not because they are wrong, but because they were exemplified
by white males.

It is clear that women and non-European people everywhere were underrepresented in
every area of society as it was during this time, but art especially was reserved for social classes
privileged enough to have extra time to reflect on their innermost being. Fortunately, there has
been significant – though far from perfect – improvement on this front, and art from many more
perspectives is becoming more accessible around the globe. This fact should be promising more
unity for citizens everywhere. After all, what time in history could view art from around the
world within seconds? Yet, in today’s art culture, we approach art with the purpose of proposing
social and political change, and this seems to be segregating cultures more than unifying them.
Art society today is becoming a kind of culture war where there is no room for discussion or
disagreement without fear of being criticized for holding a differing view. Rather than learning
from others through reflection upon their art, artists are talking at the public and forcing their
political agendas at the eyes of their spectators.

As writer and philosopher Cornel West has said, these very same artists promoting social
change are still at the mercy of the institutions who fund them (West, 2). The majority of these
artists are privileged and likely have not experienced any real adversity. So, are they merely
mirroring the real struggles of the people around them and being pressured to create political art
for fear of ostracization by their peers and institutions? It will be hard to find an artist who will
admit this, but one has to wonder if most of these artists are in privileged positions and continue
living their affluent lifestyles by profiting off the populous’ craving to feel like they are making a
difference.

The problem with the culture industry has long been the struggle of the artist giving
people what they want. To remain influential, the artist foregoes inner reflection and looks
toward public recognition. This only perpetuates the same beliefs and corrupt systems without
putting into place a mechanism that encourages thinking about the reason these systems and
beliefs exist in the first place. The effect of art will be more powerful if the artist is engaging in
this kind of reflection about the world themselves. According to Novalis, the society itself is a
person, and a mini society lives in each individual (Novalis, 314). When the artist expresses the
inward feelings of him or herself, the result will be an experience likely felt by all humanity,
because more often than not, we all experience the same kind of isolated struggles. The artist can
reveal and create unity for everyone by helping people realize they are not alone, trapped inside
their minds.

Many artists forsake inner reflection and believe the best method to get the public to
understand people who are different than themselves is by exposing their different worlds and
illuminating the differences across cultures. What if the artist looked inward to themselves and
discovered commonalities across all cultures? If we tried to unite people in the common struggle
of life before introducing their differences, we might find more willingness to create political
change. The audience will feel compelled to help when they understand that the people
struggling in the world are just like them. If “the way to the head is through the heart,” and we
feel connected to people through art, we are equipped with new ways to see the world that go
beyond our theoretical conceptions of cultures and this lets us into the openness of the human
heart that sees people as fellow humans, not as “others.” This is where the universality of art
excels by illuminating our similarities more than our differences.

Similarly, Friedrich Schiller believes art is a moral agent in its power to improve
character by responding to feelings, not reason (Schiller, 289). Most people today still believe in
art’s ability to moralize audiences by appealing to their emotions through exposing different
perspectives and injustices in the world. However, the difference between Schiller and the
modern art critic is in the wording. Schiller chooses to write “character,” or the disposition that
influences everything in the life of that person. In the culture of a lot of politics today, the only
thing a politician needs is for someone to change their mind about a few specific issues so voters
cast their votes in the politician’s desired direction. Yet, art is not about changing one opinion or
belief, it should influence the foundation of one’s entire belief system and the moral character
that makes someone who they are. When internal change alters the character of a person,
external change will radiate everywhere else in the person’s opinions and actions in society. Art
should attempt to strike the deeper parts of the human psyche with no specific goal, rather, it
should aim to develop and refine character. Change from the inside out will be lasting because
the person knows their reasons for their opinions; they are not empty words that blow in the air,
controlled by whoever is creating the wind. Through art, we are given the opportunity to observe
our own character and morals, and we can reflect on our beliefs as well as our inner struggles
that are experienced universally.

One way to discover our universal commonalities is by objectifying art and removing the
artist from their creations. The result, suggested by Schopenhauer, is the loss of the individuality
of the artist, and the unification with something that goes beyond one’s singular perception
(Schopenhauer, 335-339). I certainly do not think this is the only way to discover unity with
others. The subjective experience of the artist connected with their art can also invoke common
emotions and experiences. Nevertheless, I do think there is value in separating one’s ideas from
their identity and realizing that the ideas themselves will long outlive the individuals who
embody them.

To express timeless ideas, the Romantics believe you need a timeless artist. This is
exemplified in the role of the genius; the artist who escapes the most blatant reminder of our
humanity – time. By intense concentration on the ideas under their phenomenal essences, the
ideas of objects can be realized and communicated outside the phenomenal realm through the
expression of art, which carries more meaning than the material of which it is made due to the
meaning the artist casts upon it (Heidegger, 387). When this occurs, the ideas themselves
become timeless because they are not reliant on the structures of human time and physical space
to be comprehended. The individuals who enter this timeless realm are called the geniuses and
are often associated with God or a higher power giving them insight that cannot be explained.
The problem is not with the concept of the genius, but with the recognition of the genius. There
are types of people all over the world who can (and do) tap into this space and create works of art
through contemplation and reflection. These artists may not be associated with the idea of genius
if they are not European, but similar concepts of gods invoking insight apply to many other
cultures. The genius, in my understanding, is simply a person who has a desire to discover truths
or insights that are common to all humanity. They are not creating for egotistical reasons, but to
find a universal truth.

Sometimes searching for a universal truth requires creating art for oneself. Before you
can discover the world, one must discover themselves because “the person is a society in
miniature” (Novalis, 314). Even though the artist is creating to find truth and unity for all, the act
of creating art certainly benefits the artist. It is Schiller’s concept of the play impulse that puts
the artist in a state that we typically call the flow state today. In this condition, the artist forgets
time and loses themselves in the realm of possibilities. The artist feels connected to something
larger than themselves while simultaneously feeling small in respect to the universe as a whole.
This state elevates the contributions of the artist because they are in a different state of mind that
invites a kind of effortlessness that flows naturally from the artist to their work. The play impulse
is instigated by deliberate focus on their work resulting in a period of time where they are cut off
from the rest of the world and enter into the realm of ideas. When the artist is in this state, the art
that follows is usually objective because the artist has abandoned his individuality. What is
needed today is objective art from a variety of sources. If there is no attempt at discovering
universal truths from people all around the world, we will fail to discover what is truly universal,
and we will be prevented from benefiting from the knowledge of the universal human condition.

I believe everyone has a capacity to get into this creative space if they so desire, and
anyone from any realm can be artists. One reason why the Romantic movement is alluring is
because it gives the individual the power to create change, rather than observing the pile of
rubble that is life and being left with no direction on how to proceed forward. The Romantic
philosophers inspire people to engage in art and go beyond mere survival. Art is to give
humanity a means to rise above to the noumenon, where the mind is liberated, and our essence is
more than our physicality. Novalis encourages the individual to be the author of their lives and
live their lives like a novel. “Everything must become food,” (Novalis, 315) and we are to collect
the seeds of our experiences and plant them to create something meaningful out of our lives.

Lower classes who do not have the “privilege to contemplate” can still choose what
information they consume, even if it is as simple as reading a work of literature that makes them
think instead of watching television created for the masses. While it certainly is a privilege to
learn and create, it is one that almost everyone has access to, and the privilege only becomes
more powerful the more one engages with art and it starts to influence one’s decisions and
penetrate into the rest of their lives. Why are we trying to appeal to the wealthy public to create
change within the struggling classes instead of including the struggling classes in art directly?
Political art only continues to keep people down indirectly by regurgitating the message that
lower classes are not privileged enough to create art and enjoy it. The goal is to inspire inner
reflection about the world as it is perceived by the individual, and to unite the perceptions and
create deeper meaning. If we viewed art like the Romantics, we would be giving people from
diverse groups the tools to create art that benefits everyone. If universal truths are universal,
more people from differing social classes will have access to them. We might begin to rid art
society of its secluded elite and invite lower classes in. Lower classes may feel obliged to create
art because their reflections about their own experiences are validated by their being universal. If
artists in privileged positions try to emulate the struggles of people not involved in the art world,
that is, without individual reflection that arises from the artist herself, the audience will not have
something new to contemplate. Rather, they see the work of art as an imitation of how the artist
sees the world. Imitation is nothing but a deception of honesty and reality. If we adopted the
notion of universal art, we could encourage the inner reflection from people across all different
walks of life to produce art that leads to contemplation about the nature of the soul. The art
would derive different perceptions of the world, but ultimately, I think art is the medium in
which we realize everyone wants and strives for the same things, and when it comes to what is
important in life, we are more alike than different.

References
Heidegger, Martin. The Origin of the Work of Art, 1950.

Novalis. Miscellaneous Observations and Logological Fragments, 1798.

Rich, Adrienne. Blood, Bread, and Poetry, 1986.

Schiller, Friedrich. On the Aesthetic Education of Man, 1794.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation, 1819

West, Cornel. The New Cultural Politics of Dif erence, 1990.